On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:13:10PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) > > Sent: 13 February 2024 15:01 > > > > On 13.02.24 15:50, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 05:16:58PM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > > >> > > >> I noticed a regression report in bugzilla.kernel.org that seems to be > > >> specific to the linux-6.6.y series: > > >> > > >> Quoting from https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218484 : > > >> > > >>> After upgrading to version 6.6.16, the kernel compilation on a i586 > > >>> arch (on a 32bit chroot in a 64bit host) fails with a message: > > >>> > > >>> virtual memory exhausted: Cannot allocate memory > > >>> > > >>> this happens even lowering the number of parallel compilation > > >>> threads. On a x86_64 arch the same problem doesn't occur. It's not > > >>> clear whether some weird recursion is triggered that exhausts the > > >>> memory, but it seems that the problem is caused by the patchset > > >>> 'minmax' added to the 6.6.16 version, in particular it seems caused > > >>> by these patches: > > >>> > > >>> - minmax-allow-min-max-clamp-if-the-arguments-have-the-same-signedness.patch > > >>> - minmax-fix-indentation-of-__cmp_once-and-__clamp_once.patch > > >>> - minmax-allow-comparisons-of-int-against-unsigned-char-short.patch > > >>> - minmax-relax-check-to-allow-comparison-between-unsigned-arguments-and-signed-constants.patch > > >>> > > >>> Reverting those patches fixes the memory exhaustion problem during compilation. > > >> > > >> The reporter later added: > > >> > > >>> From a quick test the same problem doesn't occur in 6.8-rc4. > > >> See the ticket for more details. > > > > > > I think this was already fixed in 6.7 or Linus's tree, but I can't seem > > > to find the commit at the moment. > > > > I thought so as well, but was in the same situation. But your comment > > made me look again and now I found it: that was 31e97d7c9ae3de ("media: > > solo6x10: replace max(a, min(b, c)) by clamp(b, a, c)"), which indeed is > > not yet in 6.6.y. > > The code is actually (now) doing: > clamp(b, clamp(c, a, d), d) > but previously was four nested min()/max(). > Even the a/b/c/d aren't trivial. > It always was a pretty long line, but the longer expansions made it explode. > > I was mildly surprised to see the minmax changes backported. > Not complaining though. They were needed to fix build errors in a different driver that was depending on the type checking changes in them. That's why I added them. > But 31e97d7c9ae3de needs backporting as well. Now queued up, thanks. greg k-h
